The_Pauser wrote:I am never okay with this. No professional sports GM (who wants to be successful) should EVER be in a position where they just "hope for the best." There has to be some logical plan, some progression, and some sort of expectation. In my mind there are really only two paths that make sense: 1) Contend for the Cup; 2) Reload so you can have a legitimate shot to contend for the Cup in the future. Just by inserting some of our own prospects onto largely the same team we saw last year we really aren't doing anything but wasting another year.

Gillis messed up big time last year, plain and simple. I still recall him talking about our offense as being good enough at the State of the Franchise event last summer, and I couldn't believe it. Low and behold our offense was our achillies heel once again. How many embarrassing playoff performances will it take before he actually gets it?

Either we go all in and try to contend (going to take a lot of moves to make this happen, so much that it's quite unlikely), or we begin rebuilding. That doesn't mean we necessarily have to blow everything up like I have proposed in some of my lineup proposals, but we need to do more than just inserting Schroeder, Gaunce and/or Lain.

I agree with you as I think most others do as well. I'm just saying I don't expect MG to make any bold moves and if he doesn't then I'm ok with seeing what the kids can do. Not thrilled, not what I want but have to go with it, or not support the team.

If what I heard, that there is a market for Ballard, and what rikster has heard, that they have a deal they like for Luongo, are true, then we see two big pieces traded which are close to 10 million. I suppose we have to wait to see what we get back in those deals. Then we will know what type of cap space we have left to play with. But everyone knows the Luongo deal, for a number of reasons, has got to be the priority.

And I can see him returning to the NYI. They have a good up and coming team that is finally starting to show promise. Now if they would take Edler too for a huge return since they are about to lose their captain maybe we get ...

Hockey Widow wrote:I agree with you as I think most others do as well. I'm just saying I don't expect MG to make any bold moves and if he doesn't then I'm ok with seeing what the kids can do. Not thrilled, not what I want but have to go with it, or not support the team.

If what I heard, that there is a market for Ballard, and what rikster has heard, that they have a deal they like for Luongo, are true, then we see two big pieces traded which are close to 10 million. I suppose we have to wait to see what we get back in those deals. Then we will know what type of cap space we have left to play with. But everyone knows the Luongo deal, for a number of reasons, has got to be the priority.

And I can see him returning to the NYI. They have a good up and coming team that is finally starting to show promise. Now if they would take Edler too for a huge return since they are about to lose their captain maybe we get ...

I just don't think trading Luongo or Ballard really changes anything. The team failed big time in the playoffs. Ballard played 0 games, Luongo played 2. Moving these two out changes nothing as it was everyone else who failed. Hopefully this gets the ball rolling for more changes, but I have zero faith in Gillis as a GM. He's made only 1 move that I've really liked (signing Garrison) since the 2011 trade deadline.

This team needs bold moves. Even something such as trading Edler + 24th overall pick to Philly for Couturier + 11th overall pick would be huge for our future. At 11 we could probably draft Hunter Shinkaruk and now all of a sudden we have Couturier, Schroeder, Gaunce as our future top 3 centers, with Shinkaruk, Jensen and Kassian flanking them on the wings (need some more help in this area but it's a good start).

I wonder what the NYI deal is? And if it could include any of their intriguing assets such as their 15th overall pick, Nino Niederreiter, or Ryan Strome.

I guess the question is how do you define maximum return? If it was based on monetary return only, is the return on investment the best the ownership group can do?... I'd suggest that from a pure monetary return, the Canucks wouldn't pass the smell test....

Regarding the Forbes numbers, I'd want to see the breakdown of the revenues and expenses before I felt comfortable converting them to ratios....If you review their league wide breakdowns, too many very large swings from franchise to franchise ....

Anyways, I think we agree that the team wants to trade Luongo and not buy him out and that there is a better chance he gets dealt to a cap floor team ...

To clarify what I said earlier, as part of the trade the Canucks will take back a contract that they will buy out....

I guess the question is how do you define maximum return? If it was based on monetary return only, is the return on investment the best the ownership group can do?... I'd suggest that from a pure monetary return, the Canucks wouldn't pass the smell test....

Regarding the Forbes numbers, I'd want to see the breakdown of the revenues and expenses before I felt comfortable converting them to ratios....If you review their league wide breakdowns, too many very large swings from franchise to franchise ....

Anyways, I think we agree that the team wants to trade Luongo and not buy him out and that there is a better chance he gets dealt to a cap floor team ...

To clarify what I said earlier, as part of the trade the Canucks will take back a contract that they will buy out....

Take care....

You can maximize your annual profits by winning and going deep into the playoffs and getting a huge boost of those juicy playoff revenues. The Aquilini's made a killing in the 2011 playoffs where average ticket prices were in the $500's for the SCF.

Regarding Luongo: Buying him out would be a stupid decision to make. Absolutely stupid. Luongo himself said if he could rip up his contract he would. He obviously doesn't want to be here. If a trade cannot be made we can simply put him on $125 waivers. If no one picks him up, all Luongo has to do is not report and we can rip up his deal and he becomes a UFA. No buyout used.

I find it confusing to know exactly where we are on cap space. Depending upon what source you use you get different numbers. But:

If you factor the following not returning;RoyMannyMayRayLappyBarkerAlbertsLuongo

We are somewhere near 55 to 58 in cap space with somewhere near 16-18 players signed. 64 is the cap. If you take the worse numbers for the Canucks that would leave us near 58 with 6 million in space to sign or re-sign 6-7 players. Tanev and JS will be two of those players. It doesn't leave much else to upgrade the top six or find that elusive 3rd line centre. Trade Ballard and we gain another 4.2 in cap space.

Hockey Widow wrote:I find it confusing to know exactly where we are on cap space. Depending upon what source you use you get different numbers. But:

If you factor the following not returning;RoyMannyMayRayLappyBarkerAlbertsLuongo

We are somewhere near 55 to 58 in cap space with somewhere near 16-18 players signed. 64 is the cap. If you take the worse numbers for the Canucks that would leave us near 58 with 6 million in space to sign or re-sign 6-7 players. Tanev and JS will be two of those players. It doesn't leave much else to upgrade the top six or find that elusive 3rd line centre. Trade Ballard and we gain another 4.2 in cap space.

Subtract Luongo and Ballard from that and we have just under $10M to play with, with 8 players to sign (assuming we are going to be at 23 which we typically always carry). Schroeder + Tanev at a combined $2.5M + 3 depth forwards (2 4th liners and a spare) for a combined $2M and we end up with just under $5.5M for the remaining 3 players.

Ultimately I need to see some bigger names being moved. I would be sick to my stomach if we bring back the exact same roster.

Hockey Widow wrote:I find it confusing to know exactly where we are on cap space. Depending upon what source you use you get different numbers.

HW, I keep posting this possible lineup, which assumes no Raymond, Manny, Lapierre, Barker, but is a 23 man roster and is largely the same as we played with last year (including Edler and Burrows). Note that Lain's cap hit here is actually higher than Lapierre's was last year, so I think it's a good guage on what the 4th line will cost regardless of whether or not Lain is capable of playing in that role.

I guess the question is how do you define maximum return? If it was based on monetary return only, is the return on investment the best the ownership group can do?... I'd suggest that from a pure monetary return, the Canucks wouldn't pass the smell test....

Hockey Widow wrote:I find it confusing to know exactly where we are on cap space. Depending upon what source you use you get different numbers.

HW, I keep posting this possible lineup, which assumes no Raymond, Manny, Lapierre, Barker, but is a 23 man roster and is largely the same as we played with last year (including Edler and Burrows). Note that Lain's cap hit here is actually higher than Lapierre's was last year, so I think it's a good guage on what the 4th line will cost regardless of whether or not Lain is capable of playing in that role.

The_Pauser wrote:Anyone know anything about Eklund's latest rumour that we are looking to trade up into the top 4 of this years draft?

It's Eklund, lol are you kidding? Unless we're moving Edler and our own pick I don't see this happening. And even if we were... I don't want a fucking Russian.

Yep, Herb that lineup doesn't tickle my fancy at all. We're basically saying we hope a healthy Booth wins us a series. I have doubts.

The Canucks are looking to be on the wrong side of history. We had some great guys out-performing their deals in Edler and Burrows, and now we're paying them market value and the cap goes down. Burrows NEEDS to score 25-50 to make that deal worth-while. Unless he's playing with the Sedins (I think Kassian will/should) it ain't happening.

And personally, I'd rather add another $4M forward, and sign another $1M d-man to hold the fort... This defence has proven itself over-priced, less than physical, and unable to carry the offensive load come playoff time. Look around the league, forwards win you games, defence hurt other teams forwards...

I guess the question is how do you define maximum return? If it was based on monetary return only, is the return on investment the best the ownership group can do?... I'd suggest that from a pure monetary return, the Canucks wouldn't pass the smell test....

I think the more important piece of that lineup is a Healthy Kesler, who we know can win a series. That series is probably the last time we've seen Healthy Kesler...

From the glowing revenue reports this year from Bettman, and a massively-successful big-market Final Four, I got to believe the cap will start going up again very soon. Because of the likelihood of a rising cap, extremely weak FA class, and a slow-moving trade market, I have no problem with the team slotting in young guys for next year.

I think it sucks that the short season was a waste, and next is year is shaping up to be a waste, but them's the breaks. I'd prefer an honest attempt at prospect development to making stupid trades for the sake of "shaking up the core".